Tags
If you own a digital camera capable of shooting in RAW mode it’s worth considering whether you should use it at all…some of the time…or all of the time. The decision should be made on the basis of a number of factors and it should go without saying that it’s helpful if you understand the advantages and disadvantages of choosing RAW or JPEG when taking pictures. Well, perhaps it should go without saying, but it won’t, precisely because I’ve been amazed to discover how many photographers have made the decision for what can only be described as dubious reasons.

What is RAW?
For a good, comprehensible technical explanation of the RAW file format, I direct you here. For our purposes, you can think of a RAW file as the functional equivalent of a film negative. It’s a format, proprietary to each camera maker, that amounts to an unprocessed original image. To be used, the RAW file must be transformed to a non-proprietary format, which is what compatible RAW conversion software allows you to do. You are, as a practical matter, developing your digital negative when performing the RAW conversion process.
If you shoot in JPEG mode, the camera is essentially developing the digital negative for you, based on pre-established, (frequently) customizable settings. How much control you have over the in-camera settings varies from model to model, but the point is that the choices—whatever they are—have to be made before image capture. With RAW mode, you can make your development decisions after taking the picture, and the amount of control you have over this process is vast.

Main Advantages of RAW Over JPEG
- We’ve already touched on the biggest advantage immediately above: developmental control. Exposure can be tweaked (up to two stops in either direction—which, in all honesty, is beyond “tweaking”), white balance can be adjusted without penalty. Anyone familiar with a RAW converter (Adobe Camera Raw, for instance) knows that there are numerous other fully-reversible-without-penalty adjustments to an image that can be made as part of the conversion process.
- As I alluded to in an article I posted here last month, with images in the RAW format, as image processing software improves and your personal knowledge of the digital darkroom increases, you will always have access to your originals. With RAW files, image postprocessing is not fixed in time, so the end product can be improved—sometimes dramatically.
- Converted RAW files are 16-bit images while JPEGs are only eight. This provides you far more leeway to make post-conversion adjustments without nasty artifacts (such as noise or banding) showing up. In general, RAW files have a significantly higher image quality ceiling than JPEGs.

Main Disadvantages of RAW Capture
- Time: depending on what you want to do with the image, RAW capture can needlessly slow you down. At a minimum, RAW files have to be converted; JPEGs do not. JPEGs emerge from the camera in final form, ready to be used, which simplifies your workflow.
- RAW files are, on balance, much larger than JPEGs, so you can fit fewer of them on a memory card and they are more likely to clog your camera’s buffer and slow down your shooting.
- Even when it comes to image quality, depending on what your end goal is, RAW capture can be overkill. For small prints and Web postings, for instance, you are unlikely to see any image quality benefits from shooting in RAW mode.

So What Mode Do You Use, Big Shot?
When I’m out in the field, I shoot in RAW mode exclusively. Literally every image I have posted as an accompaniment to my entries on this blog (and my own) are derived from RAW captures. But keep in mind my circumstances:
First, I’m shooting with the intention of preserving the option of creating large prints from each image I produce. I will use images in other forms from time to time—Web posting, slideshows and the like—but that’s not my primary consideration. The point is that I’m valuing image quality over and above a lot of other factors—time, convenience, file size, etc.—that are important issues that may (completely legitimately) rank more highly for others.
Second, my subject matter is made up of mostly cooperative elements—things that don’t move all that much. As a result, I’m very seldom concerned about filling the camera’s buffer. If you’re into candid or action photography of any kind, you may find yourself valuing these factors and may want to consider whether RAW is your best choice.
On the rare occasions when I’m snapshooting, I use my wife’s point-and-shoot and am perfectly happy to have the convenience to capture JPEGs.
The bottom line is, I’ve made my format choices based on a careful calculation of my own priorities. The only thing about my approach that I urge you to follow is the “careful calculation of your priorities” part. Your considerations may be the same as mine, but they may very well differ. That’s perfectly okay; the key is to make a reasoned choice based on an understanding of the file format options available to you and how well they fit with your proclivities.
Thursday Tips is written by Kerry Mark Leibowitz, a guest blogger on 1001 Scribbles, and appears every other Thursday. To read more of his thoughts on photography, please visit his blog: Lightscapes Nature Photography.
Pingback: Reflections of a Large Format Photographer | Kit Frost
Pingback: What the hell is "Shooting in RAW" and why should I care? - FotoFilosophy
Well presented article that covers the key issues well. I always shoot RAW and glad I have as I am going back over my collection from 7 or 8 years ago and applying the benefits of modern software and my increased knowledge to get more out of them.
Agreed, completely. In fact, a few weeks ago, I wrote an entry that covered this very subject: Back to the Drawing Board, which was basically a reprise of a piece I posted on my own blog more than a year ago: Into the Archives.
An interesting discussion point here. I use point and shoot JPEG because I want the quickness and a small lightweight camera, I carry everything in the hills so more for me would be overkill – at the moment. As I get back into photography that may change. And the extra control may become a factor, it is something I am looking at for later in the year.
Jim
Just wanted to let you know–you can get the RAW format in a very small (i.e. smaller than DSLR) package. Some point-and-shoots have the capability, for instance, and essentially all mirrorless (a.k.a. “EVIL–electronic viewfinder, interchangeable lens) cameras have a RAW format. The point is, camera size/RAW is not necessarily a tradeoff. You can have both.
I will probably be looking for some sort of halfway house between DSLR and the point and shoot. Will you be doing anything on the production side of pictures in the future. The printing, and how long digital prints last, this has always been an issue and worry.
Jim
I can do something about post-production. I’ve done a bit on custom profiles and the digital darkroom in general, but nothing about printing per se…
Reblogged this on taisececilphotography and commented:
Good post I found useful
Good post!!! Wonderful shots!!!
Thanks!
Great Post – wealth of information for me as a photographer, especially one that is new to a DSLR too. Have a Great One:)
Thanks very much. Best of luck with the new camera!
Great post! RAW is my choice, for every shot i make. I use jpeg only when i am running out of memory! It takes a bit more to be processed in lightroom but i have the results i want.
Thanks for the comment–glad to hear that you’ve found a file format choice that’s working for you.
Thanks for this; it is a very reasoned discussion. You write: “If you’re into candid or action photography of any kind, you may find yourself valuing these factors and may want to consider whether RAW is your best choice.” I think that nails it for me. Since I do street, I hesitate to take up so much space with one shot. In addition, since I’m probably never going to make large prints of these, I don’t bother.
However, when I am doing cityscapes, or working at times I think I may want to preserve (like the Obama Inauguration) I will shoot raw. I do wish someone would figure out how to make raw less than a 32MB file though.
Thanks for weighing in.
Depending on the camera you use, you may have access to some form of RAW file compression (loss-less) that may shrink the size somewhat. Having said that, the size of the file is more a product of resolution than any other factor. Back when I was shooting the Nikon D100 (2003-06), the 6 MP RAW files the camera generated were only about 9 or 10 MB in size (on average–the composition of the scene itself has a role in file size–the more detailed the image, the larger the file, all else being equal). One of the prices we pay for the seemingly ever-growing number of pixels in each new model is increased file size.
Very informative post and superb images
Thanks very much.
With the proliferation of non-camera cameras (phones, pads, etc.) I’m wondering if the term RAW might go the way of the term film….
There seem to be a growing number of photo editing softwares becoming available for phone and pads – are these all about cropping and such or do they also allow exposure, etc. adjustments? How well does that work on JPEG formats?
I don’t think RAW is going to go anywhere any time soon. Most lower end digital cameras have always been JPEG only; the cellphone migration is merely a continuation of that reality. RAW offers substantive IQ benefits for many shooters and it would be foolish for high-end camera manufacturers to dump the feature.
There are some fairly feature-rich editing apps for phones and tablets which allow you to do a fair amount with the JPEG images that you can create from embedded cameras, but…no matter the source, a JPEG is a lossy-compression/8-bit file. You can fool with color balance and luminosity (and the like), but you don’t have the freedom to adjust exposure and white balance that’s endemic to a RAW file.
the moment i discovered raw, never went back. it is absolutely amazing what you can do when you have pixels to play it. i’m a sport photographer and some people think i’m crazy for shooting only raw but that is my choice and i’m very happy with it
I’m with you. Even on the rare occasions when I photograph wildlife, I stick with RAW and I haven’t regretted it.
I’m agree… raw this is my choice!
What an excellent explanation! I remember a few years ago a camera salesman extolling the virtues of RAW as the only way to go, but I didn’t get it at the time. I will have to check it out, great post and beautiful shots!
Thanks very much, and best of luck with your explorations of the RAW format.
I use RAW for everything but party photos… the abilities for post-processing it offers are simply amazing…
I follow largely the same protocol, and I agree re the post-processing capabilities of RAW.
Wow – gorgeous shots. I tend to use Raw too even for snapshooting.
Thanks. When I’m shooting with my DSLR I always shoot RAW. On the rare occasions when I use my wife’s P&S, it’s JPEG…of course, that camera doesn’t have a RAW shooting mode…
Very informative and detailed article. Kudos to Kerry for giving us a pro’s takes on the pros and cons of RAW.
Thanks…but in the interest of full disclosure, semi-professional.
(Photography’s not my day job.)
thanks for the tips…i am using 90% raw, the remaining 10% is for JPEGs that is on a case-to-case basis.
Sounds good; whatever works for you.